takeyourlemonstakeyourlemonsMine was The Registry Buginator but I prefer(snip)

My custom title still sucks

TOTAL NEWBIE

Registered: 12/24/03
Posts: 21629
Loc: Aperture Laboratories

Originally Posted By: lou_fine

It is not realistic to expect CGC to catch all things all of the time when it comes to restoration detection. The back of their CGC label clearly states this as they will only only make a good faith effort to detect restoration. They will not warrant this process or the results of this check.

I agree...I don't think anyone has expected CGC to be infallible...but if they know a situation such as this they should, for the safety of the consumer, communicate it better than a sticky thread at the top of a forum.

I remember a bunch of folks willing to chip in and help CGC do this...CGC could also do small things such as sending a reminder to those in the registry set, send out a letter to all CS members, etc.

Listen, I'm no *spoon*. I understand the costs involved. Heck, there could be a fund set up to help CGC ofset some of this. The bottom line (for CGC) is the bottom line...I'd prefer a bit more information to help the consumer here.

As a result of this current FUZZY LOGIC I am on PERMANENT notice on buying ANY CGC book. It's not the way I prefer to enjoy my hobby. I guess that's the grim reality of the situation.

Mr. ZipperMr. ZipperIf every thread and post that was self-referential to Board protocol, politics, history and/or monkey-business disappeared, how many would be left? -- from the book "Solipsistic Proof that the Boards are All"

TOTAL NEWBIE

Registered: 10/29/03
Posts: 8907
Loc: Upstate NY

Originally Posted By: sterlingcomics

I understand the costs involved. Heck, there could be a fund set up to help CGC ofset some of this. The bottom line (for CGC) is the bottom line...I'd prefer a bit more information to help the consumer here.

You'd think they would have an errors & omissions policy to cover situations like this.

TransplantTransplantWARNING!!! This member is passive aggressive. Please beware of sharp fingernails.

TOTAL NEWBIE

Registered: 08/16/07
Posts: 20443
Loc: Ellen James Society

Originally Posted By: Transplant

Great points raised by some folks here. But they are not the point of this thread.

CGC has notified the community that they suspect someone who submitted books to them did so after trimming the books. They've acknowledged that some of the books trimmed and submitted received blue labels.

The point of this thread was to point out in the insufficiency and of CGC's response so far. Questions remain as to:1) Why does CGC refuse to release a list of books that it believes are suspect (by virtue of being submitted by this person)?2) Why does CGC not "proactively" contact registry set owners of the suspected books?3) Why did CGC limits its offer of reviewing books to the time period noted?4) Do they have any reason to believe that this person did not a) submit books through other people or b) that books sold by this person are not also suspect of having been trimmed?

This is not a thread to discuss whether CGC can detect all resto work or whether there is a better alternative or whether more education is needed for collectors. Discussing it here is OT and contributes to the idea that CGC can just ignore the reasonable questions posed to them.

_________________________

"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence."Charles Bukowski

GACollectibles: It seems very....passive aggressive. DrWatson: I have known him several years and I can say with some absurdness that there isn't anything passive about him.

I had dinner with Mark Haspel on Wednesday night, I discussed these issues:

1) Why does CGC refuse to release a list of books that it believes are suspect (by virtue of being submitted by this person)?

legal liability. They are contractually bound not to release this information from the submitter and legal action can be instituted. Even though banned, there is no conviction or any legal determination or even actual concrete evidence that Ewert trimmed the books himself. Therefore, they are still bound to protect the confidentiality.

2) Why does CGC not "proactively" contact registry set owners of the suspected books?

See answer above. Their job is to review any books to check for safety. Using information they hold is a potential violation of privacy.

3) Why did CGC limits its offer of reviewing books to the time period noted?

This is the time period that CGC has always identified as the period when they believed Ewert began submitting books that may have been trimmed.

4) Do they have any reason to believe that this person did not a) submit books through other people or b) that books sold by this person are not also suspect of having been trimmed?

a) They have no evidence to demonstrate that Ewert books were submitted (during that time period) by any one else. Absolutely zero. To their knowledge, nobody is currently submitting books for Ewert either.

b) There is no evidence, even tangential, to demonstrate that someone else is selling Ewert books. CGC would have to be going proactively after all frauds and that is not the service they provide.

I had dinner with Mark Haspel on Wednesday night, I discussed these issues:

1) Why does CGC refuse to release a list of books that it believes are suspect (by virtue of being submitted by this person)?

legal liability. They are contractually bound not to release this information from the submitter and legal action can be instituted. Even though banned, there is no conviction or any legal determination or even actual concrete evidence that Ewert trimmed the books himself. Therefore, they are still bound to protect the confidentiality.

2) Why does CGC not "proactively" contact registry set owners of the suspected books?

See answer above. Their job is to review any books to check for safety. Using information they hold is a potential violation of privacy.

3) Why did CGC limits its offer of reviewing books to the time period noted?

This is the time period that CGC has always identified as the period when they believed Ewert began submitting books that may have been trimmed.

4) Do they have any reason to believe that this person did not a) submit books through other people or b) that books sold by this person are not also suspect of having been trimmed?

a) They have no evidence to demonstrate that Ewert books were submitted (during that time period) by any one else. Absolutely zero. To their knowledge, nobody is currently submitting books for Ewert either.

b) There is no evidence, even tangential, to demonstrate that someone else is selling Ewert books. CGC would have to be going proactively after all frauds and that is not the service they provide.

TransplantTransplantWARNING!!! This member is passive aggressive. Please beware of sharp fingernails.

TOTAL NEWBIE

Registered: 08/16/07
Posts: 20443
Loc: Ellen James Society

Originally Posted By: Foolkiller

I had dinner with Mark Haspel on Wednesday night, I discussed these issues:

1) Why does CGC refuse to release a list of books that it believes are suspect (by virtue of being submitted by this person)?

legal liability. They are contractually bound not to release this information from the submitter and legal action can be instituted. Even though banned, there is no conviction or any legal determination or even actual concrete evidence that Ewert trimmed the books himself. Therefore, they are still bound to protect the confidentiality.

2) Why does CGC not "proactively" contact registry set owners of the suspected books?

See answer above. Their job is to review any books to check for safety. Using information they hold is a potential violation of privacy.

Brian: Thank you for relaying some information. I hope you'll understand that I don't consider an official response from CGC on the matter but at least something is out there.

However, the responses on 1 & 2 just don't make any sense. I deal in contracts and federal law/regs on private health information all day long. To my knowledge, there is nothing that would cover the information at issue here: linking a CGC # with the identity of the submitter. I always defer to not being aware of some state or other statute/reg. But I have not seen anything in the submission form that would create an obligation on CGC's part to hold this information as protected. Therefore, at the risk of being blunt, it's either BS, paranoid or I'm an *spoon* b/c I've forgotten something.

_________________________

"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence."Charles Bukowski

GACollectibles: It seems very....passive aggressive. DrWatson: I have known him several years and I can say with some absurdness that there isn't anything passive about him.

"When in a room full of people and no one has your back; it's time to move your back." ~ Anonymous

I think that life's too short for this. I want back my ignorance and bliss. I think I've had enough of this. Blow me... one last kiss.

You can tell the truth or you can lie. You can say I left you or I died. Say I'm in the Himalayas on some spiritual quest and could spend years lookin' for the light. Say I'm in the witness program with the F.B.I. Say a U.F.O. abducted me from home. Well, you can say what you chose, but I tell you the truth. You can say for sure I'm gone.

I had dinner with Mark Haspel on Wednesday night, I discussed these issues:

1) Why does CGC refuse to release a list of books that it believes are suspect (by virtue of being submitted by this person)?

legal liability. They are contractually bound not to release this information from the submitter and legal action can be instituted. Even though banned, there is no conviction or any legal determination or even actual concrete evidence that Ewert trimmed the books himself. Therefore, they are still bound to protect the confidentiality.

2) Why does CGC not "proactively" contact registry set owners of the suspected books?

See answer above. Their job is to review any books to check for safety. Using information they hold is a potential violation of privacy.

Brian: Thank you for relaying some information. I hope you'll understand that I don't consider an official response from CGC on the matter but at least something is out there.

However, the responses on 1 & 2 just don't make any sense. I deal in contracts and federal law/regs on private health information all day long. To my knowledge, there is nothing that would cover the information at issue here: linking a CGC # with the identity of the submitter. I always defer to not being aware of some state or other statute/reg. But I have not seen anything in the submission form that would create an obligation on CGC's part to hold this information as protected. Therefore, at the risk of being blunt, it's either BS, paranoid or I'm an *spoon* b/c I've forgotten something.

The issue is whether it's written into the CGC contract when you submit or they have an internal policy that prevents it. In this case, it could be an internal policy. They retain a fairly large firm who does a lot of work for them on the coin side etc., and I believe they've reinforced the notion that are legally bound not to release the information.

Even if their lawyers are simply advising them that releasing the information is simply unwise -- the bottom line is, they don't believe they are allowed to release the information under their own agreements.